4 ms·

I am really disappointed that it has come to this. In a short few days we have normalized: 1. Twitter picking political winners and losers, where they ban some

I am really disappointed that it has come to this. In a short few days we have normalized: 1. Twitter picking political winners and losers, where they ban some accounts like Trump but allow others (like the Chinese or Iranian government, like BLM associated rioters, etc.) to post whatever they want. 2. Collusion between different tech companies all adopting the same policy in lock step, with no real choice (no real market competition) for customers as a result since all of them are making identical political choices. 3. Censorship and deplatforming moving down the stack into the operating systems of phones. Let's be honest, Apple's 24 hours was a meaningless gesture that affords Parler no time. As always, an incident like this is used by those with power to normalize exercising even more power. It happened after 9/11 and it is happening again here now. Glenn Greenwald has a great article on this recent capitol riot (HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25702575 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25702575) and it highlights the parallels between our reaction to this incident today and the reactions seen post-9/11. Personally, I think the trend towards discarding free speech principles in favor of heavy censorship will keep continuing. I will not be surprised if Apple and Google start censoring what websites and IP addresses you can access. The answer can't just be "go build your own competitor" when one side with political and technical power is going to keep deplatforming you at lower and lower levels of the stack. It is not feasible for someone to build their own phone or operating system, and even the Android co-founder (!) tried exactly this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essential_Phone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essential_Phone) For there to be choice, the biggest tech companies must be split up. And those whose service depends on network effects must be regulated when their network is above a certain size, because they can be as influential a power broker as a government. Twitter and Facebook (and others) are examples of this, and they can't just be treated like just any other private company. These days I feel like speech in the public sphere only exists if it exists on one of these platforms that are in wide use. We need to regulate them so that they are required to carry all speech that does not explicitly break the law.

louwrentius 6y ago
1. An Iranian remark about unsafe vaccines was pulled (so not true) 2. If you don't use racial slurs, call for hate or violence, there is no problem for anybody. 3. This is not about censorship in the sense that the government forbids you to speak. This is companies denying 'you' access to a megaphone if you use it to call for violence, hate and use racial slurs. The idea of 'heavy censorship' is ludicrous to me. Nobody is being censored. You can still say what you want, but nobody has to listen to you. And if you don't use racial slurs, call for hate and violence, you are totally free to use the platforms.
- throwawaysea 6y ago
  What is "hate"? That is such a vague and expansive term that can mean whatever those in power want it to mean. There are activists today that would say I am being "hateful" if I am concerned about the rising trend of gender dysphoria among young teenage women or if I think puberty blockers should not be used. Far-left radicals might call that hate, but everyone else would call it common sense. And that's exactly why we shouldn't have platforms that are large and influential picking what's allowed and disallowed. I also find this line disingenuous: > You can still say what you want, but nobody has to listen to you. OK, if that's the case, why can't people say what they want on Twitter or Parler, and you can just not view the content you disagree with?
  - louwrentius 6y ago
    > what is hate? I also find this line disingenuous. You know what we all mean by it. Don’t make this a silly word game. Nobody needs to (risk seeing) see calls for hate, violence and racials slurs. If you don’t want that shit on your platform, ban it. That’s not censorship. Fine if you build your own gab/4chan/parler. But nobody is required to host you. Nobody is required to give you a soap box. Discussions about gender stuff is fine. I disagree strongly but that is not hate. However calling your own position common sense in a debate is also disingenuous and it makes me question your motives.
- incrudible 6y ago
  > If you don't use racial slurs, call for hate or violence, there is no problem for anybody. So there's no problem for Ayatollah Chamenei when he calls for "Death To America" at the annual Quds-Day gathering, as long as he doesn't do it on Twitter specifically?
  - louwrentius 6y ago
    That’s not in any way what I suggest or write.
    - incrudible 6y ago
ceejayoz 6y ago
> where they ban some accounts like Trump but allow others (like the Chinese or Iranian government, like BLM associated rioters, etc.) to post whatever they want The removal of the "governments are exempted" rule appears to be beyond just Trump. Twitter notably removed a tweet last night from the Chinese government promoting their abuse of the Uighurs: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/01/twitter-takes-down-chinas-baby-making-machines-tweet-on-uighur-women/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/01/twitter-takes-do...

louwrentius 6y ago

1. An Iranian remark about unsafe vaccines was pulled (so not true) 2. If you don't use racial slurs, call for hate or violence, there is no problem for anybody. 3. This is not about censorship in the sense that the government forbids you to speak. This is companies denying 'you' access to a megaphone if you use it to call for violence, hate and use racial slurs. The idea of 'heavy censorship' is ludicrous to me. Nobody is being censored. You can still say what you want, but nobody has to listen to you. And if you don't use racial slurs, call for hate and violence, you are totally free to use the platforms.

throwawaysea 6y ago
What is "hate"? That is such a vague and expansive term that can mean whatever those in power want it to mean. There are activists today that would say I am being "hateful" if I am concerned about the rising trend of gender dysphoria among young teenage women or if I think puberty blockers should not be used. Far-left radicals might call that hate, but everyone else would call it common sense. And that's exactly why we shouldn't have platforms that are large and influential picking what's allowed and disallowed. I also find this line disingenuous: > You can still say what you want, but nobody has to listen to you. OK, if that's the case, why can't people say what they want on Twitter or Parler, and you can just not view the content you disagree with?
- louwrentius 6y ago
  > what is hate? I also find this line disingenuous. You know what we all mean by it. Don’t make this a silly word game. Nobody needs to (risk seeing) see calls for hate, violence and racials slurs. If you don’t want that shit on your platform, ban it. That’s not censorship. Fine if you build your own gab/4chan/parler. But nobody is required to host you. Nobody is required to give you a soap box. Discussions about gender stuff is fine. I disagree strongly but that is not hate. However calling your own position common sense in a debate is also disingenuous and it makes me question your motives.
incrudible 6y ago
> If you don't use racial slurs, call for hate or violence, there is no problem for anybody. So there's no problem for Ayatollah Chamenei when he calls for "Death To America" at the annual Quds-Day gathering, as long as he doesn't do it on Twitter specifically?
- louwrentius 6y ago
  That’s not in any way what I suggest or write.
  - incrudible 6y ago

ceejayoz 6y ago

> where they ban some accounts like Trump but allow others (like the Chinese or Iranian government, like BLM associated rioters, etc.) to post whatever they want The removal of the "governments are exempted" rule appears to be beyond just Trump. Twitter notably removed a tweet last night from the Chinese government promoting their abuse of the Uighurs: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/01/twitter-takes-down-chinas-baby-making-machines-tweet-on-uighur-women/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/01/twitter-takes-do...